Agenda item

Transport, Environment & Climate Change Select Committee Review of Pollution in Buckinghamshire's Rivers and Chalk Streams

Decision:

Between March - June 2022, the Review Group collected evidence through meetings both in person and on Teams. The Review Group then met in June to discuss and agree its key findings and recommendations, which were presented in the report found at Appendix 1. The report was presented to the Transport, Environment & Climate Change Select Committee on 3 November 2022.

Cabinet was asked to consider the recommendations of the Select Committee Review of Pollution in Buckinghamshire’s Rivers and Chalk Streams.

RESOLVED

1) That the Select Committee and Review Group, as well as the supporting officers, be thanked for their work and subsequent recommendations.

2) That Cabinet’s responses to the review and recommendations, as set out and circulated to Members, be AGREED.

Note: a complete breakdown of the scrutiny recommendations and Cabinet’s responses can be found here.

Minutes:

The Transport, Environment & Climate Change Select Committee agreed to set up a Rapid Review of Pollution in Buckinghamshire’s Rivers and Chalk Streams at its meeting on 22 January 2022. The Review Group was chaired by Cllr Robert Carington and thanks were given to the Members which comprised of Cllrs Bill Chapple OBE, Peter Brazier, Mick Caffrey, David King and Adam Poland-Goodyer. The Chairman also thanked the two Cabinet Member involved Cllr Gareth Williams and Peter Strachan, stakeholders and officers particularly Karen Fisher and Chris Ward.

The Chairman in his presentation made the following points:-

· Chalk streams were unique as they provided pure, clear water from underground chalk aquifers and springs where wildlife could grow and thrive. These environments were rare, with an estimate of 85% of the known chalk streams in the world being located in southern and eastern England; nine significant chalk streams alone could be found in the Chilterns Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

· The Government’s Environmental Audit Committee recently concluded that every single river in England was contaminated by chemicals and made recommendations on how to overhaul the situation. Buckinghamshire’s rivers and chalk streams, like many others across England, were impacted by a range of different factors. This included pollution from sewage, highways, agriculture, water abstraction and flooding. The Environment Agency stated that the majority of the county’s rivers have a moderate status – none have a good or high status. The Select Committee was especially concerned to hear of reports of increased discharge events by water companies and HS2 work potentially polluting the chalk aquifer beneath the Misbourne Valley. As a result, Members were keen to undertake a cross party Rapid Review to gain a better understanding of the current health of Buckinghamshire’s waterways and areas of responsibility, understand concerns, and hear how these were being addressed. In addition, the Rapid Review wanted to identify areas for potential improvement through, for instance, increased partnership and collaborative working.

· A number of meetings were held with voluntary sector organisations and stakeholders such as Chilterns Chalk Stream Project & Chilterns Conservation Board, Chiltern Society, National Farmers Union, River Chess Association & Impress the Chess, and the River Thame Conservation Trust. Other meetings were held with the Strategic Flood Team, Highways, the Water Services Regulation Authority, Thames Water, Anglian Water and Natural England. Affinity Water and the Environment Agency were both unable to attend and sent in written answers to the Committee’s questions.

· There were three main areas that the Committee felt should be prioritised and were also areas where the Council could have the most impact; water pollutants and run-off, communications and engagement and education.

· With regard to water pollutants and run off – the urban and transport sector accounted for 20% of the poor river water quality in the Thames River Basin. It was reported that diffuse urban pollution was a significant issue for most of the chalk streams in Buckinghamshire due to surface water from road run-off carrying pollutants directly into watercourses. These pollutants included decomposing plant and animal matter (humus) and by-products from vehicles such as hydrocarbons, oil, brake dust, tyre fragments, hydraulic fluids, and anti-freeze. Therefore the first two recommendations were directed to the Cabinet Member for Transport when considering gully technology and cleaning.

· With regard to communication and engagement, whilst the Council did not have responsibility for water quality, the Council did work in partnership with the Environment Agency and the water companies. This covered recommendation 3-9, recommendation 5 being considered the most important recommendation asking the Leader to write to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs regarding the Council’s concern with engagement from the EA with regard to the discharge of their statutory function. Further work should also be carried out with water companies and improvements could be made with the Council website.

· With regard to education a communications campaign should be promoted through existing channels (e.g. newsletters and planning informatives) to encourage residents to ensure that their builders/contractors connect the right drain to the right place on works that were exempt from checks by Building Control.

Cabinet was asked to consider the recommendations of the Select Committee Review of Pollution in Buckinghamshire’s Rivers and Chalk Streams and made the following points:-

· The Leader thanked the Review Group for an important piece of work which impacted greatly on Buckinghamshire residents. It was concerning that Buckinghamshire did not have any rivers that were good or excellent. The Leader confirmed that he was happy to write to the Secretary of State. He expressed disappointment that the Environment Agency were unable to attend the Committee in person.

· A Cabinet Member asked if a response had been received from Thames Water. As part of the Smarter Water Catchment Programme they had been quite proactive in this area. The Chairman of the Review Group reported that Thames Water had been very helpful through the Review process and had responded to a number of questions and illustrated areas of improvement. However, a holding response had been given to the Review but there was no timeframe when a response would be received.

· A question was asked about tributaries and how important they were e.g. the Bearbrook ran through Aylesbury and had its own tributaries and the River Thame fed into the River Thames. The Chairman of the Review Group reported that they were considered as part of the report but the main focus was on the overall catchment areas of the streams and rivers, questions were aligned with the relevant water companies.

· A Cabinet Member reported that he was happy that Affinity Water had been involved in river improvement projects across its region over the past few years, including the Smarter Water Catchment Plan, and had also halted water abstraction from the Chess thereby improving natural water flow and quality. He also asked a question regarding the difference of opinion held by HS2 and whether there was any consideration regarding East-West Rail and its proximity to the River Ouse. The Chairman of the Review Group reported that Affinity Water were the only company to mention that they had halted water abstraction and Thames Water went into a lot of detail about planned works in their catchment areas. On the Environment Agency point there was a particular incident which had been investigated and they had concluded that it was not caused by HS2. East-West Rail had not been part of the considerations.

The Cabinet Member for Climate Change and the Environment thanked the Chairman of the Review Group for his report and commented that the recommendations impacted on a number of areas and that Members and local action groups had been proactive for a number of years with regards to the River Chess and other streams in the local area. There was good partnership working with the Smart Water Catchment Area and although the Council did not have responsibility for water quality as an Authority it was a good vehicle for scrutiny and public interaction with the utilities companies, particularly with storm discharge events. The Environment Agency were a critical partner and it was important to engage with them on a regular basis.

RESOLVED

1) That the Select Committee and Review Group, as well as the supporting officers, be thanked for their work and subsequent recommendations.

2) That Cabinet’s responses to the review and recommendations, as set out and circulated to Members, be AGREED.

Note: a complete breakdown of the scrutiny recommendations and Cabinet’s responses can be found here.

Supporting documents: